In a 2002 WSJ op-ed, titled “Don’t Attack Saddam,” Brent Scowcroft advised, “the Iraqi dictator had nothing to with the 9/11 hijackers, his aims were at odds with the terrorists’, he would never hand over weapons of mass destruction to outside groups, an occupation of Iraq would be bloody and costly for America, and such a war would be a diversion from the war on terrorism.” History has proven Mr. Scowcroft to be quite prescient.
As noted in the American Conservative, “…considering the feverish atmosphere of mid-2002, the op-ed was wise and an act of considerable courage…. Now he was publicly broadcasting disagreements with a Republican administration. George W. Bush later wrote in his memoirs that he was ‘angry Brent had chosen to publish his advice in the newspaper instead of sharing it with me.’ It was vintage Bush—clueless and disingenuous.”
The American Conservative tells readers, with the insurgency in Mesopotamia raging, Condoleezza Rice complained at a dinner party about the war’s course. “No one told me Iraq would be so difficult,” she said. “Yes, they did,” replied Scowcroft, “but you weren’t listening.”
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Scheuer’s Prayer for Hillary’s Permanent Political Demise - September 29, 2016
- The Swiss Get It Right in Banning Burkas in Public - September 28, 2016
- More Scholarly Advice from Libertarian Pacesetter David Franke - September 28, 2016